But you haven’t heard quite as much about James Meeks, the third of Obama’s three closest “spiritual advisor’s.” You can hear one of his “sermons” on Youtube.

We certainly could learn more about another of Barack Obama’s friends from Chicago, Penny Pritzker, who heads the Obama campaign’s National Finance Committee. We can look into her own financial background and learn that not only was she the president of Superior Bank – which massively failed; and not only did she literally personally buy her way out of jail by paying a $460 MILLION dollar “fine”; but that she was at the very epicenter of what would become known as “the subprime loan scandal” that would come to eat this nation’s financial system alive.

We could look at former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson, former head of Obama’s vice presidential selection committee until it was discovered that he had benefited from sweetheart loans from subprime king Countrywide.

The name Tony Rezko certainly ought to sound familiar.

The name William Ayers, terrorist bomber, Obama-co-lecturer, fellow board member, neighbor, and friend should certainly come to mind.

Barack Obama has been steeped in radical politics since the day he emerged from his atheist secular humanist grad student mother’s womb. The openly communist Frank Marshall Davis was his childhood mentor; Saul Alinsky and Gerald Kellman (it was through Kellman’s Woods Fund that Obama met leftist terrorist William Ayers) dominated his thinking in college. He chose the most radical church in the country; he chose to make Jeremiah Wright his “spiritual mentor”; he chose to immerse himself in hard-core ideological radicalism. Never before has this country considered such a radical leftist for its chief executive.

Barack Obama’s own wife Michelle should have a LOT more explaining to do than her “and for the first time in my adult life I’m proud of my country,” her, “America is a mean place in 2008” comments. If that’s all you know about her “work,” you have no IDEA. The following short video is guaranteed to give you some “Oh, My God!” moments, or I’ll refund your money:

Now we find another Obama association that exposes a whole other ugly can of worms.

Chicago lawyer Mazen Asbahi, who was appointed as the national coordinator for Muslim American affairs by the Obama campaign (if this link fails you will know that the Obama campaign is continuing to scrub its website) less than two weeks ago, stepped down Monday after an Internet newsletter wrote about his brief stint on the fund’s board – which also included a fundamentalist imam – prompting The Wall Street Journal to email inquiries. Asbahi attempted to make his brief time on a board the issue, when the real issues were his relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, and his 8-year long personal relationship with Hamas fundraiser Jamal Said.

Gee, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. If you really want people to forget that you are the son of a Muslim father who served an incredibly brutal and corrupt Kenyan government; if you want them to forget that you attended a madrassa in Indonesia as a child and even practiced Islam; if you want them to forget that you campaigned in Kenya on behalf of your cousin, Raila Odinga, who relied upon chaos, corruption, and even violence in his campaign; numerous other troubling associations between yourself and radical Muslims; forget those photographs of you waling around in traditional Muslim clothes, well then maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t hang around with Muslim radicals such as Mazen Asbahi and another radical pal of yours, the anti-Semite Rashid Khalidi.

It is frankly impossible for me to understand how Barack Obama managed to win the Democratic nomination. That so many Americans could care less about who their candidate really is – beyond the fact that he is the Democrat in the race – is simply amazing.

When I heard about the flare-up over Barack Obama seeking to use the famous Brandenburg Gate in Germany for a political rally, I remembered this story:

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year-old Texas rancher whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Obama and his bid to be our President.

The old rancher said, “Well, ya know, Obama is a “post turtle.”

Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a “post turtle” was.

The old rancher said, “When you’re driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that’s a “post turtle”.

The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor’s face, so he continued to explain. “You know he didn’t get up there by himself, he doesn’t belong up there, he doesn’t know what to do while he is up there, and you just wonder what kind of a dumb ass put him up there.”

Barack Obama wouldn’t have been a state senator had Barack Obama not been able to nullify the signatures of voters to keep Alice Parker – who had won the district with 87% of the vote – off the ballot. He very probably would not have become a U.S. Senator had his opponent (Jack Ryan) not destroyed himself with a sex scandal and a messy divorce before dropping out of a race for a seat previously held by a Republican. He had a total of 149 (or by some counts 218) days of Senate experience before believing himself qualified to be President of the United States. He believes a speech about race ought to trump his 23 years spent in a racist church. He says he can no more disown his racist Marxist pastor than he can disown his own grandmother before throwing his grandmother under the bus for political expediency and then disowning his pastor. He has already compiled more gaffes in his short political career than most seasoned politicians accumulate during a lengthy career. And Luke Boggs of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has compiled a whopping list of things that Barack Obama has come to regret (“Obama’s frequent regrets may make us sorry“).

I don’t know how Barack Obama got on top of the post to begin with, but it sure seems something strange is going on to keep him up there.

A guy like this needs some credibility.

By many accounts, Obama began to attend the radical Trinity United Church in order to obtain “street cred” with the mostly black voters in his district (and, you know, try to convince folk that he really wasn’t the arrogant elitist which he all-too-frequently comes across as being).

When you have no credibility of your own, you have to parasitically derive it from something else.

So you can understand why Barack Obama would want to stand in front of the famous pillars of the Brandenburg Gate where President John F. Kennedy in 1963 delivered his famous “Ich Bin Ein Berliner” address, and where President Ronald Reagan delivered his equally famous 1987 “Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall” address.

What’s that you say? They were American Presidents confronting historic moments, and Barack Obama is a President wannabe trying to garner some pseudo credibility? Yeah. I agree with you.

Mrs. Merkel has made clear she disapproves of having this potent symbol of German division and reunification pulled into the American election fight. “To use the Brandenburg Gate in some ways as a campaign backdrop, she has a limited sympathy for this and expresses her skepticism over pursuing such plans,” said a spokesman, Thomas Steg, at a news conference Wednesday.

Mrs. Merkel was in Japan for the G-8 meeting with President Bush and other leaders of the industrialized nations Wednesday, when her spokesman made the statements against using the Brandenburg Gate site.

“No German candidate for high office would think to use the National Mall or Red Square in Moscow for a rally, because it would be seen as inappropriate,” Mr. Steg said, though he added that Mrs. Merkel welcomed Mr. Obama’s visit.

You just don’t get it, Chancellor Merkel: Barack Obama NEEDS to stand in front of the Brandenburg Gate and connect himself to the powerful images of the past. Otherwise, people might start evaluating him on his own pathetic merits rather than view him through the prism of all the wonderful images he can connect himself to.

Where’s he supposed to go now? Go to the Trinity United Church of Christ? The New York Police Headquarters, where his professor, board-of-directors, and lecturer pal William Ayers blew up when he was a terrorist with the Weathermen? Come on, Angela: Barack needs a cool image to associate himself with!

What’s that you say? Barack Obama doesn’t have a dang thing to do with the Brandenburg Gate, and if anything his policies are in direct opposition with the reasons that Reagan and Kennedy went there? It doesn’t matter. Image is everything now, buddy. When you can put yourself in the picture, the thousand words are nothing more than so much blah, blah, blah.

This isn’t the first time Barack Obama has got caught trying to give himself some pseudo credibility.

Well, Barack Obama has left Trinity United Church. He has demonstrated that he is morally qualified to be president.

Oops. It’s 2008, and NOT 1985, when the move would have demonstrated that he actually had a functioning moral compass.

Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago was no more toxic last Sunday than it was over twenty-three years ago when a young Barack Obama first arrived. In his 1993 memoir “Dreams from My Father,” Barack Obama recalled a vivid description recalling his first meeting with Wright back in 1985. The Rev. Wright warned Barack Obama that getting involved with Trinity might turn off other black clergy because of the church’s radical reputation. It’s not that Obama didn’t know about the radicalism at Trinity. It’s that he didn’t care.

Obama has said that Jeremiah Wright was instrumental in attracting him to the church he joined and has acknowledged he titled his book, “The Audacity of Hope,” after one of Wright’s sermons. One of Wright’s sermons, “The Audacity to Hope,” was so inspiring to Obama that he titled his book “The Audacity of Hope” after it. That message, by the way, contained the phrase, “white greed drives a world in need.”

So you can only imagine how Jeremiah Wright must have felt when Barack Obama threw him under the bus and denounced his views when they were the exact same views he had been preaching the day Obama came to the church 23 years before. Obama was fine with them before they became national public knowledge, and disapproving of them after. But Wright had been preaching the same message when he married Barack and Michelle Obama; he’d been preaching the same message when he baptized their daughters; he’d been preaching the same message when Barack Obama asked him to serve on his campaign’s spiritual leadership council. And in point of fact, he had been preaching the same message the day Barack Obama dis-invited him to speak at the event announcing his candidacy for president.

Of Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama, one of these men has been consistent his entire career; and that man has been Jeremiah Wright, not Barack Obama. Jeremiah Wright didn’t just begin saying this stuff at age 72; he’s been preaching the same message to the same choir for well over thirty years. Does anyone actually believe that Jeremiah Wright just discovered his message?

Which is, of course, exactly the sort of thing that would make a posturing political demagogue angry.

With this prelude, let me interact with Barack Obama’s press conference announcing his withdrawal of membership from Trinity. But let me begin by asking the questions that pointedly WEREN’T asked at the press conference:

* How on earth can you possibly justify having remained in that church environment for 23 years?

* Are you suggesting that Jeremiah Wright just recently discovered these views, and in no way harbored them all along?

* How can you have endorsed Jeremiah Wright, calling him your spiritual adviser, your uncle, your mentor, your moral compass, and then disavow this man who has been preaching the same message all along? How are you not responsible for his teachings and views when you so completely endorsed the man for so many years? What about other friends and spiritual advisors you have similarly endorsed over a period of years, such as Rev. Michael Pfleger? What about Rev. Otis Moss, who you again endorsed this very day? He embraced Pfleger as a friend of Trinity, and then specifically thanked God for Pfleger’s hateful remarks immediately after he made them! How on earth can you claim not to in any way be responsible for these peoples’ views when you have endorsed the people who have been saying these things for years?

* Do you endorse Malcom X and Louis Farrakhan as your church has officially done? Why on earth would you remain in a church that would endorse such figures of hate and divisiveness?

* As an ostensible intellectual, are you completely ignorant of the teachings of the black liberation theology embraced by Trinity? Are you ignorant of where it derived from or what it represents? How do you – as a self-acknowledged intelligent man – justify sitting under the teaching of what is clearly a blatantly racist and anti-American theology?

Now let us look at Obama’s version of reality in his leaving Trinity Church as given in his prepared remarks:

We have many friends among the 8,000 congregants who attend there. We are proud of the extraordinary works that the church continues to perform throughout the community, to help the hungry, and the homeless and people in need of medical care.

I have tremendous regard for the great young pastor who has taken over – Rev. Moss – and continue to admire the work that Rev. Wright did in building up the church. But it’s clear that now that I’m a candidate for president, every time something is said in the church by anyone associated with Trinity – including guest pastors – the remarks will be imputed to me even if they totally conflict with my long held views, statements, and principles.

We obviously saw an example of that in the recent statements by Father Pfleger, who is someone I have known, who I consider a friend, who has done tremendous work in Chicago, but made offensive statements that had no place in our politics and in the pulpit; that unfairly mocked and characterized Senator Clinton in ways that I think are unacceptable.

It’s also clear that Rev. Moss and the Church had been suffering from all the tension my campaign has visited on them. We’ve had news organizations harassing members at their homes and their work places. We had reporters grabbing church bulletins and calling up the sick and the shut-in in an attempt to get news about the church. We’ve had news organizations scrutinizing Rev. Moss’s sermons and attempting to make political hay out of even the most innocuous or innocent remarks by him. That’s just not how people should have to operate in their church. It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace.

Barack Obama speaks of the politicization and news coverage of his church as though both he and the church are somehow victims. It is true that no president in recent memory has ever had his church become such an issue. But, in the words of Rolling Stone Magazine (which is liberal to its core):

This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr. Wright is not an incidental figure in Obama’s life, or his politics. The senator “affirmed” his Christian faith in this church; he uses Wright as a “sounding board” to “make sure I’m not losing myself in the hype and hoopla.” Both the title of Obama’s second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 come from Wright’s sermons. “If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from,” says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left, “just look at Jeremiah Wright.”

The thing that makes Trinity United Church so incredibly relevant politically is because it is 1) such an intensely radical church environment, and 2) because Barack Obama is so intimately connected with a pastor who has been demonstrated to be a purveyor of anti-Americansism and racial hatred. You’re just not going to find anything like that in an examination of the church affiliations of John McCain, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and on and on. None of our presidents who have come before would ever have dreamed of joining such a radical church, or so deeply embracing such divisive pastors.

When Jeremiah Wright talked about “white greed” in his now-famous “Audacity of Hope” message, he was perfectly expounding on black liberation thought. When he claimed that white America deliberately created the AIDS virus as a genocide against blacks, he was accurately exegeting black liberation ideology of class based warfare against the oppressed black class. Or, expressed negatively, when he said that anti-crack cocaine penalties were instituted by racist legislators for the purpose of incarcerating as many blacks as possible, how was that in any way contrary to his central theological beliefs? When Wright denounced Israel as a Zionist state that imposed “injustice and … racism” on Palestinians, how was this not in perfect accord with his theology? When Wright railed against “AmeriKKKa” in his sermons, just how was that contrary to black liberation thought? And when Wright lectured American society that it deserved 9/11, was this in any way out of bounds with either the teachings of black liberation theologians or the Marxism from which they derived their message?

As for his “many friends among the 8,000 congregants who attend” at Trinity, is Barack Obama referring to those thousands of cheering congregants who gave the hate of Michael Pfleger a standing ovation, and who similarly rose to cheer the rants of Jeremiah Wright? Michael Pfleger, by the way, is not merely a “guest speaker,” but a regular speaker at Trinity. Was he referring to the Rev. Otis Moss, who called Pfleger a “brother beloved, he is a preacher par-excellence, he is a prophetic powerful pulpiteer” before his message and said “We thank God for the message, and we thank God for the messenger. We thank God for Father Michael Pfleger. We thank God for Father Mike” after the message? How on earth could Barack Obama continue to call Otis Moss a wonderful young pastor and speak of his tremendous regard for this man who so embraced and applauded anti-American hate and anti-white racism?

And I cannot help but watch and read Barack Obama’s statements – as well as the Democrat’s embrace of this man – with stunned amazement. He is not outraged by the statements themselves as much as he is offended that they have been broadcast and covered in a way harmful to his candidacy. There is simply an appalling lack of outrage over appallingly outrageous statements that we now know so thoroughly characterize the life and soul of his church.

Obama said, “I am not denouncing the church. I am not interested in people who want me to denounce the church because it’s not a church worthy of denouncing. And so if they’ve seen caricatures of the church and accept those caricatures despite my insistence that’s not what the church is about, then there’s not much I can do about it.”

Obama’s description of “caricatures” hearkens to his previous statements that his pastors’ views had been taken out of context in endless loops. But we now know that the views we have heard are neither caricatures or statements out of context: rather, Wright defended them one by one, and they accurately represent the pastor’s position. Furthermore, the church congregation that embraced these radical preachers wildly cheered and applauded all these terrible remarks – including the very worst ones. How one earth does one NOT find all the church worthy of denunciation?

And Obama said, “I have to say this was one I didn’t see coming. We knew there were going to be some things we didn’t see coming. This was one. I didn’t anticipate my fairly conventional Christian faith being subject to such challenge and such scrutiny,” said Obama. He said it has been months since he has been at the church, on Chicago’s South Side. “I did not anticipate my fairly conventional Christian faith being subjected to such…scrutiny.”

I ask, how can a candidate for the highest office in the world be so uncomprehending? How can he show such idiotic personal judgment? How can he even condemn these remarks when he sees them as “conventional”? There is no question that he is taking a whining tone here; it’s not that outright offensive vile hate was coming out of the church; it’s that he didn’t anticipate his “fairly” conventional Christian faith being subjective to scrutiny. He still doesn’t get it. He has said he disapproves of or disagrees with the remarks that now number in the dozens; but there is simply no demonstration even yet that he was genuinely offended by anything other than the attention these many statements of hate received.

Obama’s defenders have analogized the toxic environment of Trinity with the revelations of the sex abuse of priests in the Catholic Church. But there is no similarity, unless the priests in mass after mass shouted out that they were abusing young teenage boys as the crowds screamed and applauded their approval. The abuses occurred in secret, and their revelation brought outrage; the sermons of Jeremiah Wright (and now Michael Pfleger) occurred at the pulpit in the midst of a cheering congregation.

Similarly, Obama’s defenders have attempted to create a moral equivelence between Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger and John McCain and John Hagee and Rod Parsely. Again, come on! McCain barely knew these men. They weren’t his friends. They weren’t his “spiritual advisors.” They didn’t marry him or baptize his daughters. McCain didn’t write books named after their sermons. And McCain didn’t endorse them – as Barack Obama has specifically endorsed his growing list of radical reverends – they endorsed him. Only fools would accept such a ridiculous comparison.

And Obama’s defenders have said that a candidate for president ought to be able to hear divergent and even divisive views without having those views ascribed to that candidate. Obama himself said, “I do think that there is certainly a tradition in the African American church, but I think there’s a tradition in a lot of churches, to speak out about injustice, to speak out against issues like racism or sexism or economic inequality. And, you know, my hope would be that pastors who — well, let me put it this way. My hope would be that any presidential candidate can go to a church and hear a sermon and even hear some controversial statements without those views being imputed to them and being subject to the same exacting political tests that a presidential candidate or that presidential candidate’s statements would be.”

But then let all the people who hold this view go to a white supremacist church and listen to their views for 23 years. Let them bring their families into this environment, and let them say of the white supremacist church pastors what Obama has said of the radical pastors of his own church. You know that they would never do this, because they could not stomach the message. The point is that Obama – and these knee-jerk liberals who are defending him – do and have affirmed the radical, racist, anti-American message of Trinity United Church. Obama’s membership is no big deal to such people simply because don’t have a problem with the church’s teachings.

This is a church and a pastoral leadership affirmed by the church that has embraced the person and teachings of Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam. It is a church whose poison has repeatedly been demonstrated for everyone to see. And anyone who would tolerate such an environment for any length of time has no business of ever being a president of the United States.

Prior to the revelations of Obama’s associations with the Rev. Wright and Trinity, I was one of the substantial majority of conservatives that feared and distrusted a Hillary Clinton administration far more than an Obama presidency. Other than his documented liberalism, I had no axes to grind with the junior senator from Illinois.

But as soon as I started hearing the words of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and started to understand the twenty year relationship Barack Obama had with a purveyor of hatred, bitterness, and racism, that changed like a dirty diaper.

I immediately knew that: 1) I’d never heard anything remotely so vile come from any pastor I’ve ever sat under; and 2) that I would have got up and walked out of any church in which I ever did hear anything so vile.

And right from the start, I simply could not believe that a man as intelligent and articulate as Barack Obama clearly is – a graduate of Harvard Law School and editor of the Harvard Law Review – could be so completely ignorant of the basic theology and teaching of a church he attended for over twenty years.

The progress of this story is telling:

In a campaign appearance in early March, Sen. Obama initially said, “I don’t think my church is actually particularly controversial.” He said Rev. Wright “is like an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with,” telling a Jewish group that everyone has someone like that in their family.

In a statement made to ABCNews.com the day the Wright “statements” began to come out, Obama’s press spokesman Bill Burton said, “Sen. Obama has said repeatedly that personal attacks such as this have no place in this campaign or our politics, whether they’re offered from a platform at a rally or the pulpit of a church. Sen. Obama does not think of the pastor of his church in political terms. Like a member of his family, there are things he says with which Sen. Obama deeply disagrees. But now that he is retired, that doesn’t detract from Sen. Obama’s affection for Rev. Wright or his appreciation for the good works he has done.”

The attitude of the Obama camp was really more selective outrage that the press would cover Wright’s outrageous remarks than over the nature of the remarks themselves.

But within days, it was evident that Barack Obama had to distance himself from his longtime pastor.

In his Philadelphia speech, delivered March 18, Obama said: Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.”

He went on to say of Wright, “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.”

But Jeremiah Wright proceeded to go from forum to forum to prove that Obama’s characterization of Wright’s remarks was a flat-out lie. Rather than “the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube,” Wright proceeded to defend every single one of the hateful “soundbites” that had been seen coming out of his mouth. It turned out that Trinity United Church of Christ really HAD “conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators.” It turned out that those commentators had been far more accurate and honest than Obama was.

And as Jeremiah Wright repeatedly and passionately defended his views – and demonstrated that they had represented his key beliefs all the time – Barack Obama finally did come out and denounce the man who had been his spiritual advisor for over twenty years. We can only surmise that he has not yet denounced his grandmother (a.k.a. that “typical white person.”

The question is not whether Obama believes exactly the same things that Jeremiah Wright believes (we frankly don’t know what Obama believes, given the massive disconnect between his words and his actions). The thing that bothers me is the fact that Wright said one hateful thing after another, and somehow nothing seemed to trigger sufficient outrage to walk out and denounce the pastor as well the church that gave this pastor his pulpit.

What would it take to make you vote with your feet and say, “That’s it. I’m out of here”? The fact is that somehow, in this absolutely toxic environment, Barack Obama never heard anything that reached his threshold.

I have never heard the kinds of things that Wright has said come out of the mouth of any pastor I have ever heard. And if I ever were to hear such remarks, I would be out of that church as fast as I would be out of a toxic dump facility.

Obama has continued to maintain that – although he heard certain “controversial remarks” (being careful to neverever mention the specific content of said “controversial remarks”) – he has never heard any of the outright hate that he now acknowledges have “outraged” and “saddened” him.

But that story has seemed so implausible.

And now its even more implausible.

Now we know that Obama has repeatedly appeared in a church publication called Trumpet Magazine, a magazine that has repeatedly featured one Barack Obama on its pages, and even on its cover.

Now it’s not just a matter that Obama didn’t bother to hear. It’s that he didn’t bother to read either.

Stanley Kurtz has a devastating piece titled, “Jeremiah Wright’s ‘Trumpet’“: The content of the magazine produced by Barack Obama’s pastor reveals the content of his character.

Kirtz says, “Wright founded Trumpet Newsmagazine in 1982 as a “church newspaper”–primarily for his own congregation, one gathers–to “preach a message of social justice to those who might not hear it in worship service.” So Obama’s presence at sermons is not the only measure of his knowledge of Wright’s views. Glance through even a single issue of Trumpet, and Wright’s radical politics are everywhere–in the pictures, the headlines, the highlighted quotations, and above all in the articles themselves. It seems inconceivable that, in 20 years, Obama would never have picked up a copy of Trumpet.”

Kurtz provides a littany of the absolute poison that this magazine contains.

The article – after linking Obama to the Black Panthers by way of statements from the Panthers – concludes: “This is the disaster of Barack. Instead of transcending race, he has embraced and lived in the heart of a radical theology that preaches racial division and black dominance. I’ll stick with Martin Luther King. I want to be judged by the content of my character, not the color of my skin. Malik Shabazz certainly does not believe that.”

Now, it’s bad enough that Barack Obama is linked to all of this. But now it turns out that someone at Trinity has been scrubbing the church webstite to delete embarassing ties between Barack Obama and the church, prompting ABC’s Jake Tapper to ask the question, “Who’s Scrubbing the Trinity United Church of Christ Website?”

Interestingly, Trumpet used to have a web presence and now it doesn’t seem to.

Here’s the Google cache of the Trumpet Magazine heralding Louis Farrakhan (“When Minister Farrakhan speaks, Black America listens,” says the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright,likening the Minister’s influence to the E. F. Hutton commercials of old. “Everybody may not agree with him, but they listen…Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African American religious experience.”)

Through a web archive search I also found THIS ARTICLE from the September 2005 Trumpet, in which Rev. Wright wrote: “Conservative fanatics line up on the side of al-Qaeda or they line up behind George Bush. Both are terrorists! Both believe that war is the answer. Both believe in murdering innocent people…”